民国时期西南“夷苗”的政治承认诉求

【作者】 伊利贵；

【导师】 潘蛟；

【作者基本信息】 中央民族大学 ， 人类学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 上世纪90年代以来,西方学界兴起了一股对中国民族政策的批评风潮。分析中国的民族识别,解构中国政府对其境内少数民族的构建在西方成为中国研究的一个知识增长点。通过梳理和分析,本文认为这些批评可以约化为这样两个观点：(1)中国的民族识别缺乏对少数民族主体性的尊重,是一个使用国家权力来“强制”建构的过程。(2)中国是一个威权国家,中国的少数民族是中国的“东方性”结合国家的威权发明和创造出来的。为了回应这些批评,本文对中国近代以来的社会历史环境进行了必要的梳理、总结和分析,对民国时期向政府请愿的一个具体的案例进行了深入研究。通过这些工作,笔者得出以下结论：一、民族差异政治,即以某一种文化、世系／种族差异作为边界(这个边界不一定是清晰的)的差异政治,不仅仅存在于现代的中国,也存在于传统的中国。二、中国的民族问题并非仅仅是历史上遗留下来的老问题,它更多的是近代民族国家建设生成的新问题。三、新中国的民族承认政治并非如一些西方学者所言仅仅是国家权威的产物,而是这个国家与自辛亥革命以来涌现的少数民族承认诉求之间达成的一种协商结果。尽管协商双方权力地位并不对称,但这种不对称的权力关系是动态的,并非一成不变。中国少数民族并非仅仅是消极的被构建者,他们具有能动性,会应对新的情势来构建新的自己。本文共分六章。第一章通过对西方学界对新中国民族政策的批评和中国学界对此的回应/响应的回顾,提出了对这些批评进行研究和回应的必要性。第二章对中国近代以来的民族主义思想、边疆危机和宪政运动进行了研究和分析,并由此提出：新民族主义意识形态的影响是导致近代中国边疆危机的一个非常重要的因素。第三章通过对高玉柱家世和生平的研究,提出高玉柱进行民族政治承认诉求的原因：在近代以来中国民族国家的建设过程中,西南少数民族没有在新建的民族国家政治框架中得到必要的承认和安置,导致了这些人群被“疏离”,并产生了希望得到国家政治承认的诉求愿望。第四章详述了高玉柱的整个请愿过程,并对她的请愿内容和结果进行了分析,由此得出以下结论：族属的政治化在民国既已有之,它并不是新中国仿照苏俄民族政策的产物。西南少数民族获得参政的权力也并不是消极的“被安排”、“被识别”、“被构建”,而是经由不懈诉求争取来的。第五章运用福柯的权力理论分析和呈现了在各方力量(权力)交错的环境中,对峙的各方根据各自利益的考虑,不断进行博弈的过程。通过对这个过程的研究发现：在权力的作用下,高玉柱被“规训”成了一个符合民族国家话语的“新主体”,同时,个体发挥的能动性也使得民国政府的话语在一定程度上被形塑。第六章得出了本文的结论,并就民族政治提出了一些自己的看法。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since 1990s, there has been a criticizing agitation among the western scholars against China’s policies on ethnic minorities. It seems that analyzing China’s ethnic identification and deconstructing China’s policies on ethnic minorities has become a knowledge growth point. This thesis holds that the criticism can be reduced into such two viewpoints by classification and analysis as:(1) China’s ethnic identification lacks respect for the ethnic minorities’subjectivity, and it is a "forced" process of construction by use of government power; (2) China is an authoritarian state, and the ethnic minorities in China have been created and invented by the government.To respond to the criticism, this thesis undergoes necessary classifying, summarizing and analyzing to the social and historical environment of China during the period of Republic of China, together with a careful study of a specific petition case. With all the work done, the author reaches the following conclusions:1. Politics of difference, taking a culture, a lineage/race difference as boundary which may be inconspicuous do not only exist in contemporary China, but also did in traditional China;2. China’s ethnic minority issue is more a new one generating in the construction of a contemporary nation-state than an old historical problem left behind;3. Politics of recognition in the People’s Republic of China is not a product of an authoritarian state, but a result from the continuous negotiation between the ethnic recognition petition and the state ever since the 1911 Revolution. Though the power status is asymmetry, the power relation is dynamic, not static. Instead of being constructed lethargically, China’s ethnic minorities have been actively participating in the new selves’ construction to cope with new state of affairs.This thesis consists of six chapters. Based on the reviewing of western scholars’ criticism to China’s ethnic politics and of China’s scholars’ responses, the first chapter emphasizes the significance of research on and rebut to the criticism. Studying of the social and historical background and reviewing of the crises in border areas lead the second chapter to proposing that the new nationalism ideology is the important reason that causes the crises in modern China. By studying her extraction and life experience, the third chapter finds the reason why Gao Yuzhu initiated the petition of ethnic recognition:the strong desire of ethnic minorities living in Southwest to be politically recognized resulted from their refusal of recognition by the Republic of China during the process of nation-state building in modern China. The fourth chapter expatiates upon the process of Gao Yuzhu’s petition, and analyzes her petition and its results. Thus made is the conclusion that politicizing of ethnic identity is not the product of New China imitating the former Soviet Union since it existed even in the modern times. Instead of being negatively arranged, recognized and constructed, people’s suffrage has been striven for after continuous petitioning. The fifth chapter uses Michel Foucault’s power theory to analyze the process of strategic game among different interest parties. After studying the process, this chapter draws the conclusion that Gao Yuzhu is disciplined by the action of power as a new subject which answered to a discourse of nation-state. At the same time, the discourse of national government is shaped in some degree by Gao Yuzhu’s petition.Thus comes the conclusion in the sixth chapter in which the author also proposes his thinking on ethnic politics.更多还原